Whilst I tend to fall asleep when reading some of the - undoubtedly highly informed - discussion in this thread, which is in any case of no more than casual interest to me, I keep coming back to the observation made in Erwin Puts' piece. In it he compares Mark Dubovoy's assessment of the M8 series with the current camera.

"The big question: the Leica M8 gets the identical comments (stunning, superb) that the Leica M is receiving, but the M8 is now “a bust, it was not a good camera”, but then it offered “exceptional shooting experience and extraordinary image quality”.What will Mark Dubovoy say about the Leica M when a new Leica M (2014) will be announced. "

Call me mean-spirited, but such glaring contradiction completely undermines any value in the review. Did I miss something whilst asleep or has anyone found a way to explain away this 180 degree swerve?Roy

Enthusiasm fuels many positive human endeavours, but tends to wear off over time.

Now what the heck is going on here? That's a huge discrepancy. Are you feeling quite all right, Mark?

A measurement of SNR and DR does not have to correlate perfectly with perceived "SNR" and "DR". Throw in somewhat different color correction matrixes etc.

Quote

I think what is happening here, in this article, is that Mark is rationalizing after the event, a purchasing decision he made which was not at all rational. Hence the title, "I will not buy that camera. I promise.."

Don't we all try to rationalize our (predominantly) intuitive, gut-feeling-dominated, subjective way of being?

The samples Mark has shown seem a bit cleaner in the shadows on the Leica, indeed. To judge DR you need to have the whole picture, that is check how highlights are exposed. I usually check images with Rawdigger before drawing any conclusion.

If we compare equal size prints, which is usually the sensible thing to do, the difference in the technical performance between these two cameras is magnified. The DR of the D800E is over one full stop better than the M240 at base ISO, and 1.46 EV better at ISO 3200.

That's a very significant difference, yet Mark Dubovoy writes in his review: Now what the heck is going on here? That's a huge discrepancy. Are you feeling quite all right, Mark?

I can only assume that the indoor kitchen scene that Mark shot for this comparison at ISO 3200 did not have any deep shadows. It was a contrasty scene only in relation to the bright light at the window, which is blown in both shots. The SNR at 18%, for the D800E, is only marginally better than the Leica, at ISO 3200, according to DXO, and marginally better to a degree than one probably wouldn't notice.

I think what is happening here, in this article, is that Mark is rationalizing after the event, a purchasing decision he made which was not at all rational. Hence the title, "I will not buy that camera. I promise.."

The samples Mark has shown seem a bit cleaner in the shadows on the Leica, indeed. To judge DR you need to have the whole picture, that is check how highlights are exposed. I usually check images with Rawdigger before drawing any conclusion.

Not to any degree that's worth mentioning. The differences in SNR between these two cameras at ISO 3200, according to DXO, is of the order of 1.4dB in favour of Nikon, and such differences will vary according to the accuracy of the testing procedures and the variability of the quality control during the manufacture of the cameras.

Mark has presented two images as though they are shots of a high-dynamic-range scene capable of revealing differences in shadow detail. However, by overexposing the highlights (the kitchen window) he's actually presented a normal scene that's not particularly contrasty and demonstrated that the cameras are about equal regards noise in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones, at high ISO. At base ISO the results would clearly favour the Nikon.

If anyone wishes to compare shadow noise, particularly deep shadow noise, then I would advise him to compare images that have been properly exposed for the highlights such as a bright scene out of a window.

I had an M 240 on order for awhile. Then a local acquaintance received hers, and I had a chance to give it a good go with a few of my own M lenses. The upshot? The actual results were fine technically, but the camera & I just didn't bond. I read Michael's comments re. his group shoot w/ the 240 and found myself agreeing with him pretty much down the line. So I canceled the order and bought myself a used M6 TTL instead. (I also have the M2 I inherited many years ago from my dad.) Now I guess I'll start digging into the freezer full of old Tri-X and HP5+ I've been ignoring for the past decade. Bring on the Rodinal!

I had an M 240 on order for awhile. Then a local acquaintance received hers, and I had a chance to give it a good go with a few of my own M lenses. The upshot? The actual results were fine technically, but the camera & I just didn't bond. I read Michael's comments re. his group shoot w/ the 240 and found myself agreeing with him pretty much down the line. So I canceled the order and bought myself a used M6 TTL instead. (I also have the M2 I inherited many years ago from my dad.) Now I guess I'll start digging into the freezer full of old Tri-X and HP5+ I've been ignoring for the past decade. Bring on the Rodinal!

Well, after seeing Erwin's quotes from Mark's M8 article, I think I'll just ignore the new review of the M240. When I see comments about the M8 having better shadow detail than any other DSLR on the market ( when in fact it was one of the worst EVER), I think the tint on the rose coloured glasses is a bit too deep.

Well, after seeing Erwin's quotes from Mark's M8 article, I think I'll just ignore the new review of the M240. When I see comments about the M8 having better shadow detail than any other DSLR on the market ( when in fact it was one of the worst EVER), I think the tint on the rose coloured glasses is a bit too deep.